Page 2647 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
compensated only for the interest and charges for use of the land in the three-year period of their possession. There was no compensation at all for the loss of 30 years' use of the land, despite the fact that it was never taken up for the purpose for which it was acquired, that of housing.
In a letter to me recently, Mr Wood said that the loss of access to the land and equity held by the lessees in the land is not taken into account. That is not a criticism of Mr Wood, this Government or, indeed, the department. The fact is that, when the land was compulsorily resumed in the 1970s, it was under the Commonwealth. It was a Commonwealth government that resumed that land. However, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this same block - namely, block 13, Paddy's River - has recently been divided up and re-leased. It was done quietly, with a strange special dispensation - that its availability for re-lease not be advertised. On 29 June, I asked the Minister questions about this practice, which I believe to be irregular. I am awaiting his response.
Mr Kaine: Who are the lessees now?
MR CORNWELL: That may come out of those questions, Mr Kaine. Certainly, the previous lessees of the block were not included in any deliberations as to who would have the future use of this land. Not surprisingly, they are suspicious of the department's motives. I think they are reasonably sceptical of this Follett Labor Government's new rural policy, with its commitment to ensuring that the sales process is open, fair and equitable. One can say the same for the lease process. Only time will tell whether this process is going to be open, fair and equitable; but I state quite categorically that we, in opposition, will remain vigilant on this matter.
May I say at this point that we also support the amendments proposed by the Government. I thank the Minister for providing me with the details of the amendments in sufficient time for me to examine them. That was in marked contrast to the Chief Minister's action. She introduced amendments to the Bill which we have just debated, at five minutes' notice yesterday. I conclude by saying that we will also remain vigilant on the matter of ownership changes that might occur relatively soon, before the land is acquired by the Government through this legislation, and particularly on the matter of who acquires the land. I think we need to recognise that the potential is here for big profits to be made from the public purse by those in the know. We must guard against even the suggestion that all is not kosher.
It is a problem that I do not believe can be addressed in amendments to this legislation. To do so would disadvantage quite legitimate lessees who were looking for legitimate compensation for the compulsory acquisition of their land by the Government. I place on record that this Liberal Opposition will watch the land acquisition processes very carefully. We shall not be backward in coming forward and asking questions if we suspect that everything is not as it should be. With that qualification, we are happy to support the legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .